Out of Compassion or Out of Rights? A Story about an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Human Clinical Trial

H. Eyal
{"title":"Out of Compassion or Out of Rights? A Story about an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Human Clinical Trial","authors":"H. Eyal","doi":"10.17157/mat.8.3.5102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the intersection of compassion and rights, and how the two concepts are constituted and wielded in the context of human clinical trials. Doron, an ALS patient who was recruited to a clinical trial, believed that he had the right to post-trial treatment according to the wording of an informed consent form he signed before joining the trial. However, the biotech company sponsoring the trial instead offered him ‘compassionate use’ access, i.e., access at its discretion rather than as a legal obligation on its part. I argue that under a ‘bioeconomy of value’, the human clinical trial regime has been subordinated to two competing discourses: that of compassion and that of patients’ rights. Both are interpreted and deployed differently by the different stakeholders, namely the patient, the biotech company, and the medical establishment. I argue that the adoption, by bioeconomy actors, of a social value discourse of compassion is designed to preserve a hierarchy that deprives the patient of their power and their rights. Simultaneously, this practice highlights the power of the biotech industry as a moral partner and ‘saviour’ in its relationship with patient organisations and its role as a medical–scientific actor in the Israeli healthcare system.","PeriodicalId":74160,"journal":{"name":"Medicine anthropology theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine anthropology theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.8.3.5102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the intersection of compassion and rights, and how the two concepts are constituted and wielded in the context of human clinical trials. Doron, an ALS patient who was recruited to a clinical trial, believed that he had the right to post-trial treatment according to the wording of an informed consent form he signed before joining the trial. However, the biotech company sponsoring the trial instead offered him ‘compassionate use’ access, i.e., access at its discretion rather than as a legal obligation on its part. I argue that under a ‘bioeconomy of value’, the human clinical trial regime has been subordinated to two competing discourses: that of compassion and that of patients’ rights. Both are interpreted and deployed differently by the different stakeholders, namely the patient, the biotech company, and the medical establishment. I argue that the adoption, by bioeconomy actors, of a social value discourse of compassion is designed to preserve a hierarchy that deprives the patient of their power and their rights. Simultaneously, this practice highlights the power of the biotech industry as a moral partner and ‘saviour’ in its relationship with patient organisations and its role as a medical–scientific actor in the Israeli healthcare system.
出于同情还是出于权利?一个关于肌萎缩侧索硬化症(ALS)人类临床试验的故事
本文探讨了同情和权利的交集,以及这两个概念是如何在人体临床试验的背景下构成和运用的。多伦(Doron)是一名被招募参加临床试验的ALS患者,根据他在参加试验前签署的知情同意书的措辞,他认为自己有权接受试验后治疗。然而,赞助这项试验的生物技术公司却向他提供了“同情使用”的机会,也就是说,可以自行决定是否使用,而不是作为其法律义务。我认为,在“有价值的生物经济”下,人类临床试验制度已经从属于两种相互竞争的话语:同情和患者权利。不同的利益相关者,即患者、生物技术公司和医疗机构,对两者的解释和部署都不同。我认为,生物经济行动者采用同情的社会价值话语,是为了维护一种剥夺病人权力和权利的等级制度。同时,这一实践突出了生物技术产业在与患者组织的关系中作为道德伙伴和“救世主”的力量,以及它在以色列医疗保健系统中作为医学-科学行动者的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信